Abstract
In this paper, we investigated the evolution of prioritized \(\varvec{\mathcal {E}}\varvec{\mathcal {L}}\) ontologies in the presence of new information that can be certain or uncertain. We propose an extension of \(\varvec{\mathcal {E}}\varvec{\mathcal {L}}\) description logic, named \(\varvec{\mathcal {E}}\varvec{\mathcal {L}}_{\bot }^{+}\), within possibility theory to encode such knowledge. This extension provides a natural way to deal with the ordinal scale and represent knowledge in a way that can handle incomplete information and conflicting data. We provided a polynomial algorithm for computing the possibilistic entailment. Then, we defined the evolution process at the semantic and syntactic levels. Interestingly enough, we show that the syntactical algorithm is done in polynomial time.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data availability and access
“No datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study”.
Notes
In fact, it is a mapping from \(\Omega \) to a totally ordered scale O. This scale may often be a finite set of integers or the unit interval \(\left[ 0,1\right] \) and encodes our knowledge on the real world. In general, one considers the interval \(\left[ 0,1\right] \).
References
Baader F, Horrocks I, Lutz C, Sattler U (2017) An introduction to description logic. Cambridge University Press
Xiao G, Calvanese D, Kontchakov R, Lembo D, Poggi A, Rosati R, Zakharyaschev M (2018) Ontology-based data access: A survey. Int Joint Conf Artif Intell
Pletscher-Frankild S, Pallejá A, Tsafou K, Binder JX, Jensen LJ (2015) Diseases: Text mining and data integration of disease-gene associations. Methods 74:83–89
Khan SU (2013) Transformation of semantic networks into frames. Int J Inn Manag Technol 4(1):21
Lehmann F (1992) Semantic networks. Comput Math Appl 23(2–5):1–50
Alfonseca M (1989) Frames, semantic networks, and object-oriented programming in apl2. IBM J Res Dev 33(5):502–510
Barwise J (1977) An introduction to first-order logic. In: Studies in logic and the foundations of mathematics vol 90, pp 5–46, Elsevier
Batini C, Lenzerini M, Navathe SB (1986) A comparative analysis of methodologies for database schema integration. ACM computing surveys (CSUR) 18(4):323–364
Krisnadhi A, Lutz C (2007) Data complexity in the el family of description logics. In: Logic for programming, artificial intelligence, and reasoning: 14th international conference, LPAR 2007, Yerevan, Armenia, October 15-19, 2007. Proceedings 14, pp 333–347, Springer
Baader F, Brandt S, Lutz C (2005) Pushing the el envelope. IJCAI 5:364–369
Baader F, Lutz C, Suntisrivaraporn B (2005) Is tractable reasoning in extensions of the description logic el useful in practice. In: M4M-05, vol 450, Citeseer
Baader F, Brandt S, Lutz C (2008) Pushing the el envelope further
Kazakov Y, Krötzsch M, Simancik F (2012) Practical reasoning with nominals in the el family of description logics. In: KR
Borgwardt S, Peñaloza R (2014) Consistency reasoning in lattice-based fuzzy description logics. Int J Approx Reas 55(9):1917–1938
Hepp M, De Leenheer P, De Moor A, Sure Y (2007) Ontology management: semantic web, semantic web services, and business applications. Springer
Universities QT (2011) Qs world university rankings. University rankings. Business & Management Studies. Disponivel : https://www.topuniversities.com/universityrankings/university-subject-rankings/2020/business-management-studies 4
Benferhat S, Bouraoui Z, Tabia K (2014) On the revision of prioritized dl-lite knowledge bases. In: Straccia U, Calí A (eds) scalable uncertainty management - 8th international conference, SUM 2014, Oxford, UK, September 15-17, 2014. Proceedings. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 8720, pp 22–36, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-11508-5_3
Calvanese D, Kharlamov E, Nutt W, Zheleznyakov D (2010) Evolution of dl-lite knowledge bases. In: Proc of the 9th Int Semantic Web Conf(ISWC) vol 6496, pp 112–128
Flouris G, Plexousakis D, Antoniou G (2004) Generalizing the agm postulates: preliminary results and applications. In: NMR, pp 171–179
Benferhat S, Dubois D, Prade H, Williams M-A (2002) A practical approach to revising prioritized knowledge bases. Studia Logica 70(1):105–130
Alchourrón CE, Gärdenfors P, Makinson D (1985) On the logic of theory change: Partial meet contraction and revision functions. J Symb Logic 50(2):510–530
Flouris G, Plexousakis D, Antoniou G (2005) On applying the agm theory to dls and owl. In: The semantic web–ISWC 2005: 4th international semantic web conference, ISWC 2005, Galway, Ireland, November 6-10, 2005. Proceedings 4, pp 216–231, Springer
Liu H, Lutz C, Milicic M, Wolter F (2006) Updating description logic aboxes. KR 6:46–56
De Giacomo G, Lenzerini M, Poggi A, Rosati R (2007) On the approximation of instance level update and erasure in description logics. In: AAAI, pp 403–408
Qi G, Du J (2009) Model-based revision operators for terminologies in description logics. In: Twenty-first international joint conference on artificial intelligence
Wang Z, Wang K, Topor R (2010) A new approach to knowledge base revision in dl-lite. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol 24
Dubois D, Prade H (1998) Possibility theory: qualitative and quantitative aspects. Quantified representation of uncertainty and imprecision, 169–226
Halashek-Wiener C, Parsia B, Sirin E (2006) Description logic reasoning with syntactic updates. In: On the move to meaningful internet systems 2006: CoopIS, DOA, GADA, and ODBASE: OTM confederated international conferences, CoopIS, DOA, GADA, and ODBASE 2006, Montpellier, France, October 29-November 3, 2006. Proceedings, Part I, pp 722–737, Springer
Mohamed R, Loukil Z, Bouraoui Z (2018) Qualitative-based possibilistic el ontology. In: PRIMA (2018)
Delgrande JP, Dubois D, Lang J (2006) Iterated revision as prioritized merging. KR 6:210–220
Özçep ÖL (2016) Iterated ontology revision by reinterpretation. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.09194
Benferhat S, Bouraoui Z (2013) Possibilistic dl-lite. In: Liu W, Subrahmanian VS, Wijsen J (eds) Scalable uncertainty management - 7th international conference, SUM 2013, Washington, DC, USA, September 16-18, 2013. Proceedings. Lect Notes Comput Sci, vol 8078, pp 346–359, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40381-1_27
Benferhat S, Bouraoui Z (2017) Min-based possibilistic dl-lite. J Log Comput 27(1):261–297. https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exv014
Benferhat S, Bouraoui Z, Papini O, Würbel E (2017) Prioritized assertional-based removed sets revision of dl-lite belief bases. Ann Math Artif Intell 79(1–3):45–75
Benferhat S, Bouraoui Z, Papini O, Würbel E (2014) A prioritized assertional-based revision for dl-lite knowledge bases. In: Logics in artificial intelligence: 14th European conference, JELIA 2014, Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, September 24-26, 2014. Proceedings 14, pp 442–456, Springer
Benferhat S, Bouraoui Z, Papini O, Würbel E (2014) Assertional-based removed set revision of dl-liter belief bases. In: International symposium on artificial intelligence and mathematics, ISAIM 2014, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, January 6-8, 2014 (2014). http://www.cs.uic.edu/pub/Isaim2014/WebPreferences/ISAIM2014_Benferhat_etal.pdf
Charitopoulos VM, Dua V (2017) A unified framework for model-based multi-objective linear process and energy optimisation under uncertainty. Applied Energy 186:539–548
Canito A, Corchado J, Marreiros G (2022) A systematic review on time-constrained ontology evolution in predictive maintenance. Artif Intell Rev 55(4):3183–3211
Yahya M, Breslin JG, Ali MI (2021) Semantic web and knowledge graphs for industry 4.0. Appl Sci, 11(11):5110
Khanzode KCA, Sarode RD (2020) Advantages and disadvantages of artificial intelligence and machine learning: A literature review. Int J Lib Inf Sci (IJLIS) 9(1):3
Kang Y, Cai Z, Tan C-W, Huang Q, Liu H (2020) Natural language processing (nlp) in management research: A literature review. J Manag Anal 7(2):139–172
Haux R (2010) Medical informatics: past, present, future. Int J Med Inf 79(9):599–610
Nebel B (1998) How hard is it to revise a belief base? Springer
Nebel B et al (1992) Syntax-based approaches to belief revision. Belief revision, 29:52–88
Hansson S (1989) New operators for theory change. Theoria 55(2):114–132
Fuhrmann A (1991) Theory contraction through base contraction. J Phil Logic, 175–203
Dalal M (1988) Investigations into a theory of knowledge base revision: preliminary report. In: Proceedings of the seventh national conference on artificial intelligence, vol 2, pp 475–479, Citeseer
Wassermann R (2011) On agm for non-classical logics. J Phil Logic 40:271–294
Winslett M (1988) A framework for comparison of update semantics. In: Proceedings of the seventh ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART symposium on principles of database systems, pp 315–324
Forbus KD (1988) Introducing actions into qualitative simulation. Technical report, Illinois Univ At Urbana Dept Compu Sci
Hegner S (1987) Specification and implementation of programs for updating incomplete information databases. In: Proceedings of the sixth ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART symposium on principles of database systems, pp 146–158
Reiter R (1987) A theory of diagnosis from first principles. Artif Intell 32(1):57–95
Winslett MS (1988) Reasoning about action using a possible models approach, vol. 1427-1432, Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Eiter T, Gottlob G (1992) On the complexity of propositional knowledge base revision, updates, and counterfactuals. In: Proceedings of the eleventh ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD-SIGART symposium on principles of database systems, pp 261–273
Chou TS, Winslett M (1994) A model-based belief revision system. J Auto Reas 12:157–208
Borgida A (1985) Language features for flexible handling of exceptions in information systems. ACM transactions on database systems (TODS) 10(4):565–603
Fagin R, Ullman JD, Vardi MY (1983) On the semantics of updates in databases. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGACT-SIGMOD symposium on principles of database systems, pp 352–365
Ginsberg ML (1986) Counterfactuals. Artif Intell 30(1):35–79
Nebel B (1991) Belief revision and default reasoning: Syntax-based approaches. KR, 91:417–428
Fagin R, Kuper GM, Ullman J, Vardi MY (1984) Updating logical databases. Technical report, Stanford univ ca dept of computer science
Liberatore P, Schaerf M (1996) The complexity of model checking for belief revision and update. AAAI/IAAI 1:556–561
Creignou N, Ktari R, Papini O (2017) Complexity of model checking for cardinality-based belief revision operators. In: Symbolic and quantitative approaches to reasoning with uncertainty: 14th European Conference, ECSQARU 2017, Lugano, Switzerland, July 10–14, 2017, Proceedings, pp 387–397, Springer
Ktari R, Boujelben MA (2020) On the use of evidence theory in belief base revision. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.11640
Kang SH, Lau SK (2004) Ontology revision using the concept of belief revision. In: Knowledge-based intelligent information and engineering systems: 8th international conference, KES 2004, Wellington, New Zealand, September 20-25, 2004, Proceedings, Part III 8, pp 8–15, Springer
Qi G, Liu W, Bell DA (2006) Knowledge base revision in description logics. In: Logics in artificial intelligence: 10th European conference, JELIA 2006 Liverpool, UK, September 13-15, 2006 Proceedings 10, pp 386–398, Springer
Qi G, Haase P, Huang Z, Ji Q, Pan JZ, Völker J (2008) A kernel revision operator for terminologies-algorithms and evaluation. ISWC 8:419–434
Haase P, Stojanovic L (2005) Consistent evolution of owl ontologies. In: The semantic web: research and applications: second European semantic web conference, ESWC 2005, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, May 29–June 1, 2005, Proceedings 2, pp 182–197, Springer
Liu H, Lutz C, Miličić M, Wolter F (2011) Foundations of instance level updates in expressive description logics. Artif Intell 175(18):2170–2197
Ahmetaj S, Calvanese D, Ortiz M, Šimkus M (2017) Managing change in graph-structured data using description logics. ACM transactions on computational logic (TOCL) 18(4):1–35
Giacomo GD, Lenzerini M, Poggi A, Rosati R (2009) On instance-level update and erasure in description logic ontologies. J Log Comput 19(5):745–770. https://doi.org/10.1093/logcom/exn051
Zheleznyakov D, Kharlamov E, Nutt W, Calvanese D (2019) On expansion and contraction of dl-lite knowledge bases. J Web Semant 57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.websem.2018.12.002
Wang Z, Wang K, Topor RW (2010) A new approach to knowledge base revision in dl-lite. In: Fox M, Poole D (eds) Proceedings of the twenty-fourth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, AAAI 2010, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, July 11-15, 2010. AAAI Press. http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI10/paper/view/1786
Lenzerini M, Savo DF (2011) On the evolution of the instance level of dl-lite knowledge bases. In: Rosati R, Rudolph S, Zakharyaschev M (eds) Proceedings of the 24th international workshop on description logics (DL 2011) Barcelona, Spain, July 13-16, 2011. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol 745. CEUR-WS.org. http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-745/paper_11.pdf
Qi G, Wang Z, Wang K, Fu X, Zhuang Z (2015) Approximating model-based abox revision in dl-lite: Theory and practice. In: Bonet B, Koenig S (eds) Proceedings of the twenty-ninth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, January 25-30, 2015, Austin, Texas, USA, pp 254–260, AAAI Press. http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/AAAI/AAAI15/paper/view/9830
Giacomo GD, Oriol X, Rosati R, Savo DF (2016) Updating dl-lite ontologies through first-order queries. In: Groth P, Simperl E, Gray AJG, Sabou M, Krötzsch M, Lécué F, Flöck F, Gil Y (eds) The semantic web - ISWC 2016 - 15th international semantic web conference, Kobe, Japan, October 17-21, 2016, Proceedings, Part I. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9981, pp 167–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-46523-4_11
Giacomo GD, Lembo D, Oriol X, Savo DF, Teniente E (2017) Practical update management in ontology-based data access. In: d’Amato C, Fernández M, Tamma VAM, Lécué F, Cudré-Mauroux P, Sequeda JF, Lange C, Heflin J (eds) The semantic web - ISWC 2017 - 16th international semantic web conference, Vienna, Austria, October 21-25, 2017, Proceedings, Part I. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 10587, pp 225–242, Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68288-4_14
Gärdenfors P, Rott H, Gabbay D, Hogger C, Robinson J (1995) Belief revision. Comput Complex 63(6):35–132
Rott H (1991) Two methods of constructing contractions and revisions of knowledge systems. J Phil Logic, 149–173
Bochman A (2013) Evolutionary belief change: Priorities, condionals and argumentation
Benferhat S, Dubois D, Prade H, Williams M (2002) A practical approach to revising prioritized knowledge bases. Stud Logica 70(1):105–130. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1014658309853
Spohn W (1988) Ordinal conditional functions: A dynamic theory of epistemic states. In: Causation in decision, belief change, and statistics: proceedings of the irvine conference on probability and causation, pp 105–134, Springer
Darwiche A, Pearl J (1997) On the logic of iterated belief revision. Artif Intell 89(1–2):1–29
Qi G (2008) A semantic approach for iterated revision in possibilistic logic. In: AAAI, pp 523–528
Jin Y, Thielscher M (2007) Iterated belief revision, revised. Artif Intell 171(1):1–18
Brewka G (1991) Belief revision in a framework for default reasoning. In: The logic of theory change: workshop, Konstanz, FRG, October 13–15, 1989 Proceedings, pp 206–222, Springer
Falappa MA, Garcia AJ, Kern-Isberner G, Simari GR (2013) Stratified belief bases revision with argumentative inference. J Phil Logic 42:161–193
Falappa MA, Kern-Isberner G, Simari GR (2022) Belief revision, explanations and defeasible reasoning. Artif Intell J 141(1–28):10–1016
Tamargo LH (2012) Knowledge dynamics in multi-agent systems: Plausibility, belief revision and forwarding information. AI Communications 25(4):391–393
Tamargo LH, Falappa MA, Garcia AJ, Simari GR (2011) A change model for credibility partial order. In: Scalable uncertainty management: 5th international conference, SUM 2011, Dayton, OH, USA, October 10-13, 2011. Proceedings 5, pp 317–330, Springer
Ichihashi H, Tanaka H (1989) Jeffrey-like rules of conditioning for the dempster-shafer theory of evidence. Int J Approx Reas 3(2):143–156
Dubois D, Prade H (1997) A synthetic view of belief revision with uncertain inputs in the framework of possibility theory. Int J Approx Reas 17(2–3):295–324
Qi G, Liu W, Bell DA (2006) A revision-based approach to handling inconsistency in description logics. Artif Intell Rev 26(1–2):115–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-007-9044-3
Meyer TA, Lee K, Booth R (2005) Knowledge integration for description logics. In: Veloso MM, Kambhampati S (eds) Proceedings, the twentieth national conference on artificial intelligence and the seventeenth innovative applications of artificial intelligence conference, July 9-13, 2005, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA, pp 645–650, AAAI Press / The MIT Press. http://www.aaai.org/Library/AAAI/2005/aaai05-101.php
Qi G, Liu W, Bell D (2006) A revision-based approach to handling inconsistency in description logics. Artif Intell Rev 26:115–128
Papini O (1992) A complete revision function in propositional calculus. In: Proceedings of the 10th European conference on artificial intelligence, pp 339–343
Benferhat S, da Costa Pereira C, Tettamanzi A (2012) Hybrid possibilistic conditioning for revision under weighted inputs. In: Raedt LD, Bessiere C, Dubois D, Doherty P, Frasconi P, Heintz F, Lucas PJF (eds) ECAI 2012 - 20th European conference on artificial intelligence. Including prestigious applications of artificial intelligence (PAIS-2012) system demonstrations track, Montpellier, France, August 27-31 , 2012. Front Artif Intell Appl, vol 242, pp 151–156, IOS Press. https://doi.org/10.3233/978-1-61499-098-7-151
Baader F, Horrocks I, Sattler U (2012) Description logics. In: Studer R (ed) Staab S. Handbook on ontologies. International handbooks on information systems, Springer, pp 3–28
Zadeh LA (1978) Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility. Fuzzy sets and systems 1(1):3–28
Dubois D, Prade H (2007) Possibility theory. Scholarpedia 2(10):2074
Acknowledgements
Rim mohamed is responsible for thinking about the idea and writing paper.
Zied Bouraoui is responsible for discussing the idea of the paper.
Zied Loukil is responsible for discussing the idea of the paper.
Faiez Gargouri is responsible for discussing the idea of the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing Interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Ethical and informed consent for data used
Not applicable
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix A
Appendix A
Proposition 1
Let \(\mathcal {O}\) be an assertion free \(\mathcal {E}\mathcal {L}_{\bot }^{+}\) ontology and let \(A,B \in N_c\) be two concepts of \(\mathcal {O}\). Then:
-
1.
\(\mathcal {O} \models A\sqsubseteq B\) iff \(A\sqsubseteq B \in cl(\mathcal {O})\) or \(A\sqsubseteq \bot \in cl(\mathcal {O})\).
-
2.
The complexity of computing \(cl(\mathcal {O})\) is polynomial.
Proof
Suppose that \(\mathcal {O} \models A\sqsubseteq B\). This means that in every model of \(\mathcal {O}\), every instance of the concept A is also an instance of the concept B. By the definition of the closure operator \(cl(\mathcal {O})\), we have \(A\sqsubseteq B \in cl(\mathcal {O})\). Now, Considering that \(A\sqsubseteq B \in cl(\mathcal {O})\) or \(A\sqsubseteq \bot \in cl(\mathcal {O})\). If \(A\sqsubseteq B \in cl(\mathcal {O})\), it means that \(A\sqsubseteq B\) is a logical consequence of \(\mathcal {O}\). Thus, in every model of \(\mathcal {O}\), every instance of concept A is also an instance of concept B, which implies \(\mathcal {O} \models A\sqsubseteq B\). Similarly, if \(A\sqsubseteq \bot \in cl(\mathcal {O})\), it means that \(A\sqsubseteq \bot \) is a logical consequence of \(\mathcal {O}\). Since \(\bot \) represents the bottom concept (the unsatisfiable concept), this implies that there are no instances of concept A in any model of \(\mathcal {O}\). Hence, \(\mathcal {O} \models A\sqsubseteq B\) holds trivially.
To prove that the complexity of computing \(cl(\mathcal {O})\) is polynomial, we need to show that there exists a polynomial-time algorithm that can compute the closure \(cl(\mathcal {O})\). Since \(\mathcal {O}\) is an assertion-free \(\mathcal {E}\mathcal {L}_{\bot }^{+}\) ontology, it consists of concept inclusions of the form \(A \sqsubseteq B\) and role inclusions of the form \(r \sqsubseteq s\). We can construct an initial closure set \(cl(\mathcal {O})\) that contains all the concept inclusions of \(\mathcal {O}\). Then, for each concept inclusion \(A \sqsubseteq B\) in \(cl(\mathcal {O})\), we check if \(A \sqsubseteq \bot \) is a logical consequence of \(\mathcal {O}\). If it is, we add \(A \sqsubseteq \bot \) to \(cl(\mathcal {O})\).
This process of checking and adding concept inclusions can be done in polynomial time since the size of \(cl(\mathcal {O})\) is bounded by the size of \(\mathcal {O}\). Hence, the complexity of computing \(cl(\mathcal {O})\) is polynomial. \(\square \)
Lemma 1
Considering that \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \) is the prioritized \(\mathcal {E}\mathcal {L}_{\bot }^{+}\) ontology that includes the two axioms \((\phi ,\alpha _1)\) and \((\phi ,\alpha _2)\) then \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \) and \(\mathcal {O}'_\pi =\{\mathcal {O}_\pi \backslash \{(\phi ,\alpha _1),(\phi ,\alpha _2)\}\}\cup \{(\phi ,\max (\alpha _1,\alpha _2))\}\) are equivalent in the sense that they induce the same possibility distribution, i.e., \(\forall \mathcal {I}\in \Omega , \pi _\mathcal {O}(\mathcal {I})=\pi _{\mathcal {O}'}(\mathcal {I})\).
Proof
The proof is given immediately from the definition of the possibility distribution in Definition 3\(\square \)
Proposition 2
Let \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \) be the prioritized \(\mathcal {E}\mathcal {L}_{\bot }^{+}\) ontology and \(\mathcal {O}'_\pi \) be the ontology obtained by applying the normalization rules in Table 5 into \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \). Then \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \) and \(\mathcal {O}'_\pi \) induce the same possibility distribution.
Sketch of proof
We give the proof for some rules. The proof of the other follows similarly.
\(({\textbf {PNR}}_0)\). Let \(\mathcal {I}\) be an interpretation. Considering that \(\mathcal {I}\models (C_1 \sqcap \top \sqcap C_2 \sqsubseteq D,\alpha )\) by definition of satisfaction relation (for instance see Table 1), we have:
Hence
Then
which means that \(\mathcal {I}\models C_1\sqcap C_2\sqsubseteq D\), and \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})=\pi _{\mathcal {O}'_\pi }(\mathcal {I})\)
If \(\mathcal {I}\not \models (C_1\sqcap \top \sqcap C_2\sqsubseteq D, \alpha )\), the proof follows similarly.
\(({\textbf {PNR}}_1)\). Let \(\mathcal {I}\) be an interpretation. Considering that \(\mathcal {I}\models (C_1 \sqcap \bot \sqcap C_2 \sqsubseteq D,\alpha )\) by definition of satisfaction relation in Table 1, we have:
Hence
Then
As a result
which means that \(\mathcal {I}\models \bot \sqsubseteq D\), and \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})=\pi _{\mathcal {O}'_\pi }(\mathcal {I})\)
If \(\mathcal {I}\not \models C_1\sqcap \bot \sqcap C_2\sqsubseteq D\), the proof follows similarly.
\(({\textbf {PNR}}_2)\): let \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \) be a prioritized \(\mathcal {E}\mathcal {L}_{\bot }^{+}\) ontology where \(\mathcal {O}_\pi =\{(C\sqsubseteq D_1\sqcap D_2, \alpha )\}\). Let \(\mathcal {O}'_\pi \) be the prioritized ontology obtained after applying \(PNR_2\) to the ontology, i.e., \(\mathcal {O}_\pi '=\{(C\sqsubseteq D_1,\alpha )~ \text {and} ~(C\sqsubseteq D_2,\alpha )\}\). Then \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \) and \(\mathcal {O}_\pi '\) induce the same possibility distribution.
Let \(\mathcal {I}\) be the interpretation that satisfies \((C\sqsubseteq D_1 \sqcap D_2,\alpha )\), namely \(\mathcal {I}\models (C\sqsubseteq D_1 \sqcap D_2,\alpha )\) by definition of satisfaction relation in Table 1, we have:
Hence
This means that
Therefore \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})=\pi _{\mathcal {O}'_\pi }(\mathcal {I})\).
Conversely, assume that \(\mathcal {I}\models (C\sqsubseteq D_1,\alpha )\) and \(\mathcal {I}\models (C\sqsubseteq D_2,\alpha )\) by definition of satisfaction relation, we have \(C^\mathcal {I}\subseteq D_1^\mathcal {I}\) and \(C^\mathcal {I}\subseteq D_2^\mathcal {I}\) then \( C^\mathcal {I}\subseteq ( D_1^\mathcal {I}\cap D_2^\mathcal {I})\), therefore \(\mathcal {I}\models C\sqsubseteq D_1\sqcap D_2\) and \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})=\pi _{\mathcal {O}'_\pi }(\mathcal {I})\). The other case when \(\mathcal {I}\not \models C\sqsubseteq D_1\sqsubseteq D_2\) follows similarly. \(\square \)
Proposition 3
Let \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \) be the prioritized \(\mathcal {E}\mathcal {L}_{\bot }^{+}\) ontology and \(cl(\mathcal {O}_\pi )\) be its closed ontology, obtained by applying the rules given in Tables 5 and 6 into \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \). Then \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \) and \(cl(\mathcal {O}_\pi )\) induce the same possibility distribution.
Proof
The proof comes down to deduce that the application of normalization rules and inference rules does not change the possibility distribution, it is enough to keep repeating the application of rules and see the possibility distribution. For the normalization rules (Table 5) the proof is given above. Now for the inference rules, considering that \((C_1\sqsubseteq C_2,\alpha _1), (C_2\sqsubseteq C_3,\alpha _2)\in \mathcal {O}_\pi \). Let us show that by applying the rule (\(\text {PIR}_3\)) into \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \) the closed ontology \(cl(\mathcal {O}_\pi )\) contains the axiom \((C_1\sqsubseteq C_3,\min (\alpha _1,\alpha _2)\in cl(\mathcal {O}_\pi )\) and the possibility distribution does not change, namely \(cl(\mathcal {O}_\pi )=\mathcal {O}_\pi \sqcup \{C_1\sqsubseteq C_3,\min (\alpha _1,\alpha _2)\}\) are equivalent. Let \(\mathcal {I}=(\Delta ^\mathcal {I},.^\mathcal {I})\) a DL interpretation. We have four cases:
-
\(\mathcal {I}\models C_1\sqsubseteq C_2\) and \(\mathcal {I}\models C_2\sqsubseteq C_3\) by definition of satisfaction relation in Table 1, we have \(C_1^\mathcal {I}\subseteq C_2^\mathcal {I}\) and \(C_2^\mathcal {I}\subseteq C_3^\mathcal {I}\) hence \(C_1^\mathcal {I}\subseteq C_3^\mathcal {I}\) which means that \(\mathcal {I}\models C_1\sqsubseteq C_3\). Therefore \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})=\pi _{cl(\mathcal {O}_\pi )}(\mathcal {I})\)
-
\(\mathcal {I}\models C_1\sqsubseteq C_2\) and \(\mathcal {I}\not \models C_2\sqsubseteq C_3\) let \(\mathcal {O}''_\pi =\mathcal {O}_\pi \)\\(\{(C_1\sqsubseteq C_2,\alpha _1)\text { and }(C_2\sqsubseteq C_3,\alpha _2)\}\) then \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})=\min (\pi _{\mathcal {O}''_\pi },1-\alpha _2\)) \(=\min (\pi _{\mathcal {O}''_\pi },1-\alpha _2,1-\min (\alpha _1,\alpha _2))\) \(=\pi _{cl(\mathcal {O})_\pi }(\mathcal {I})\)
-
\(\mathcal {I}\not \models C_1\sqsubseteq C_2\) and \(\mathcal {I}\models C_2\sqsubseteq C_3\): follow similarly.
-
\(\mathcal {I}\not \models C_1\sqsubseteq C_2\) and \(\mathcal {I}\not \models C_2\sqsubseteq C_3\) let \(\mathcal {O}''_\pi =\mathcal {O}_\pi \)\\(\{(C_1\sqsubseteq C_2,\alpha _1),(C_2\sqsubseteq C_3,\alpha _2)\}\) we have \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})=\min (\pi _{\mathcal {O}''_\pi }(\mathcal {I}),1-\alpha _1,1-\alpha _2))\) \(=\min (\pi _{\mathcal {O}''_\pi }(I),1-\alpha _1,1-\alpha _2,1-\min (\alpha _1,\alpha _2))\) \(=\pi _{cl(\mathcal {O}_\pi )}(\mathcal {I})\) \(\square \)
Proposition 4
Let \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \) be a prioritized \(\mathcal {E}\mathcal {L}_{\bot }^{+}\) ontology and \(cl(\mathcal {O}_\pi )\) be its closure by applying the normalization rules in Table 5 and inference rules in Table 6. Let A and B be two concepts of \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \). Then \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \models (A\sqsubseteq B, \alpha )\) if
-
\((A\sqsubseteq B,\beta )\in cl(\mathcal {O}_\pi )\) with \(\beta \ge \alpha \)
-
\((A\sqsubseteq \bot ,\beta )\in cl(\mathcal {O}_\pi )\) with \(\beta \ge \alpha \)
Proof
The proof is immediate. It is given from the definition of the inference rules given in Table 6. \(\square \)
Proposition 5
Let \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \) be a prioritized \(\mathcal {E}\mathcal {L}_{\bot }^{+}\) ontology and \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }\) be its associated possibility distribution. Let \((\phi , u)\) be the new input information. Then \(\pi _1(\mathcal {I})= \pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(.\mid (\phi ))\) obtained by Definition 4 satisfies the postulates \(\textbf{P1}\)- \(\textbf{P2}\).
Proof
The proof is as follows:
-
P1: \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1\): To prove this, we need to show that \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1\) for any interpretation \(\mathcal {I}\). If \(\pi (\mathcal {I})=\Pi (\phi )\) and \(\mathcal {I}\models \phi \), then by the definition of \(\pi '_{\mathcal {O}_\pi }\), we have \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1\). If \(\pi (\mathcal {I})<\Pi (\phi )\), then by the definition of \(\pi '_{\mathcal {O}_\pi }\), we have \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=\pi (\mathcal {I})>0\). Since \(\pi \) is a possibility distribution, we have \(\pi (\mathcal {I})\le 1\). Therefore, \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})>0\) and \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})\le 1\), which implies \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1\). If \(\mathcal {I}\not \models \phi \), then by the definition of \(\pi '_{\mathcal {O}_\pi }\), we have \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=0\le 1\). Therefore, \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1\) in all cases, which satisfies P1.
-
P2: if \(\pi (\mathcal {I})=0\) then \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=0\): To prove this, we need to show that if \(\pi (\mathcal {I})=0\) for an interpretation \(\mathcal {I}\), then \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=0\). If \(\pi (\mathcal {I})=0\), then by the definition of possibility distribution, \(\mathcal {I}\) is completely impossible, i.e., \(\pi (\mathcal {I})=0\) implies \(\Pi (\lnot \mathcal {I})=1\). Therefore, \(\Pi (\phi \wedge \lnot \mathcal {I})=\Pi (\phi )\wedge \Pi (\lnot \mathcal {I})=\Pi (\phi )\wedge 0=0\). This means that \(\phi \wedge \lnot \mathcal {I}\) is completely impossible, i.e., \(\mathcal {I}\not \models \phi \) implies \(\phi \wedge \lnot \mathcal {I}\) is completely impossible. By the definition of \(\pi '_{\mathcal {O}_\pi }\), if \(\mathcal {I}\not \models \phi \), then \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=0\). Therefore, \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=0\) for any interpretation \(\mathcal {I}\) with \(\pi (\mathcal {I})=0\), which satisfies P2. \(\square \)
Proposition 6
Let \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \) be a prioritized \(\mathcal {E}\mathcal {L}_{\bot }^{+}\) ontology and \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }\) be its associated possibility distribution. Let \((\phi , u)\) be the new input information. Then \(\pi '_{\mathcal {O}_\pi }= \pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(.\mid (\phi ,u))\) obtained by Definition 5 satisfies the postulates \(\textbf{P1}\)- \(\textbf{P3}\).
Proof
The proof is as follows:
-
To prove that the above definition satisfies P1, we need to show that for any interpretation \(\mathcal {I}\), the possibility distribution \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})\) obtained after min-based conditioning satisfies \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1\). Let \((\phi , u)\) be the uncertain input, and let \(\mathcal {I}\) be an interpretation such that \(\mathcal {I}\models \phi \). Then, according to the definition of min-based conditioning, we have:
$$\begin{aligned} \pi '(\mathcal {I})= & {} \pi _{\mathcal {O}\pi }(\mathcal {I}\mid _m(\phi , u))\\= & {} {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1\;\;\text {if}\;\; \pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})=\Pi (\phi )\\ 1-u\;\; \text {if}\;\; \Pi (\phi )\le \pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }\le 1-u\\ \pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})\;\text {Otherwise} \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$Since \(\mathcal {I}\models \phi \), we have \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})\ge \Pi (\phi )\), so the first two cases do not apply. Therefore, we have:
$$\begin{aligned} \pi '(\mathcal {I})=\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})=1 \end{aligned}$$On the other hand, if \(\mathcal {I}\) is such that \(\mathcal {I}\not \models \phi \), then we have:
$$\begin{aligned} \forall \mathcal {I}\not \models \phi , \pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(.\mid _m(\phi , u))={\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1-u\;\; \text {if}\;\; \pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})=N_\pi (\phi )\\ 1-u\;\; \text {if}\;\; \pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})> 1-u\\ \pi ({\mathcal {I}})\;\text {Otherwise} \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$Since \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}\pi }(\mathcal {I})\le N_\pi (\phi )\) if \(\mathcal {I}\not \models \phi \), the first case does not apply. Since \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}\pi }(\mathcal {I})\le 1-u\) by definition of \(N_\pi (\phi )\), the second case does not apply either. Therefore, we have:
$$\begin{aligned} \pi '(\mathcal {I})=\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})=1 \end{aligned}$$In both cases, we have \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1\), which completes the proof that the above definition satisfies P1.
-
P2: if \(\pi (\mathcal {I})=0\) then \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=0\). Let \(\mathcal {I}\not \models \phi \) and \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})=0\). Then we have:
$$\begin{aligned} \forall \mathcal {I}\not \models \phi , \pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(.\mid _m(\phi , u))={\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1-u\;\; \text {if}\;\; \pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})=N_\pi (\phi )\\ 1-u\;\; \text {if}\;\; \pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})> 1-u\\ \pi ({\mathcal {I}})\;\text {Otherwise} \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$Therefore, the property P2 is satisfied.
-
To prove that Definition 5 satisfies P3, we need to show that: \(\Pi '(\phi )=1\) and \(N'(\phi )\ge u\). To show that \(\Pi '(\phi )=1\), we need to show that for all interpretations \(\mathcal {I}\) that satisfy \(\phi \), \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1\). There are two cases to consider:
-
1.
\(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})=\Pi (\phi )\) In this case, we have: \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(.\mid _m(\phi ,u))=1\) then, \( \pi '(\mathcal {I})=1\)
-
2.
\(\Pi (\phi )\le \pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})\le 1-u\) In this case, we have: \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(.\mid _m(\phi ,u))=1-u\) then, \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1-u<1\)
However, this case cannot happen because of the assumption that \(\Pi (\phi )>1-u\). Therefore, we have shown that for all interpretations \(\mathcal {I}\) that satisfy \(\phi \), \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1\), and hence \(\Pi '(\phi )=1\). Now, to show that \(N'(\phi )\ge u\), we need to show that for all interpretations \(\mathcal {I}\) that do not satisfy \(\phi \), \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})\le 1-u\). There are two cases to consider:
-
1.
\(\pi _{\mathcal {O}\pi }(\mathcal {I})=N\pi (\phi )\) In this case, we have: \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(.\mid _m(\phi ,u))=1-u\), then \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1-u\le 1-u\)
-
2.
\(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})> 1-u\) In this case, we have: \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(.\mid _m(\phi ,u))=1-u\) then, \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1-u\le 1-u\)
Therefore, we have shown that for all interpretations \(\mathcal {I}\) that do not satisfy \(\phi \), \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})\le 1-u\), and hence \(N'(\phi )\ge u\). \(\square \)
-
1.
Proposition 7
Let \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \) be a prioritized \(\mathcal {E}\mathcal {L}_{\bot }^{+}\) ontology, and \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }\) be the associated possibility distribution. Let \((\phi , u)\) be the new input information and \(\lambda =Inc(\mathcal {O}'_\pi )\), where \(\mathcal {O}'_\pi =\mathcal {O}_\pi \cup \{(\phi ,1)\}\). Then, the new prioritized ontology \(\mathcal {O}'_\pi \) is defined as follows:
The associated possibility distribution obtained by conditioning defined in Definition 5 is as follows:
With \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I}\mid _m (\phi ,u))\) represents the possibility distribution obtained by \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }\) with min-based conditioning in Definition 5.
Proof
First, point out that \(\Pi (\phi )=1-\lambda \). Let \(\mathcal {I}\) be an interpretation that falsifies the input information \(\phi \), then for each interpretation that falsified \(\phi \), \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }= \pi _{\mathcal {O}'_\pi }(\mathcal {I})=0\). Now, considering that \(\mathcal {I}\) satisfies \(\phi \), then, if \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})=\Pi (\phi )= 1-\lambda \), this means that the interpretation \(\mathcal {I}\) satisfies all the axioms with a weight greater than \(1-\lambda \), hence \(\mathcal {I}\) satisfies all the axioms of \(\mathcal {O}'_\pi \). As a result \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}'_\pi }(\mathcal {I})=1\). Considering now that \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})< 1-\lambda \), then:
\(\square \)
Proposition 8
The computational of the Algorithm 1 is efficient and done in polynomial time.
Proof
The computation of the obtained ontology by the Algorithm 1 is efficient. Its complexity is the same as the one of computing the inconsistency of \(\pi \) \(\mathcal {E}\mathcal {L}_{\bot }^{+}\) ontology that is given in [29], which is done in polynomial time. \(\square \)
Proposition 9
Let \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \) be the prioritized \(\mathcal {E}\mathcal {L}_{\bot }^{+}\) ontology and \((\phi , u)\) be the uncertain input. Considering that \(\mathcal {O}'_\pi \) is the augmented ontology by the assumption that \(\phi \) is false. Then the degree of inconsistency of \(\mathcal {O}'_\pi \) is \(\lambda _{inc}= Inc(\mathcal {O}'_\pi )\). The revised prioritized \(\mathcal {E}\mathcal {L}_{\bot }^{+}\) ontology is defined as follows:
Their associated possibility distributions using the min operator defined in Definition 5 are defined as follows:
Proof
Considering the case when the ontology \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \) is inconsistent with \(\lnot \phi \), this means that \(\Pi (\phi )=1\) and \(\Pi (\lnot \phi )=1-\lambda _{inc}\). Let \(\mathcal {I}\) be an interpretation that satisfies \(\phi \). Then:
When \(\mathcal {I}\not \models \phi \), then:
We have two scenarios:
-
When \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})=\Pi (\lnot \phi )=1-\lambda _{inc}\) which means that the interpretation \(\mathcal {I}\) satisfies all the axioms of the ontology \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \) having weight strictly greater than \(\lambda _{inc}\), then:
$$\begin{aligned}{} & {} \min \{1\!-\!\alpha _i:(\phi _i,\alpha _i)\in \mathcal {O}_\pi \;\text {and}\; \mathcal {I}\not \models \phi _i\;\text {and}\; \alpha _i>\lambda _{inc}\}\\{} & {} \quad =1 \end{aligned}$$Therefore \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})=1-u\)
-
When \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})<1-\lambda _{inc}\), then:
$$\begin{aligned}{} & {} \pi _{\mathcal {O}'_\pi }(\mathcal {I}) =Min \{1-u,\min \{1-\alpha _i:(\phi ,\alpha _i)\in \mathcal {O}_\pi \;\text {and}\\{} & {} \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \mathcal {I}\not \models \phi _i \text {and}\; \alpha _i> \lambda _{inc}\}\} \\{} & {} \quad \quad \qquad = Min 1-u,\{min\{1-\alpha _i:(\phi _i,\alpha _i)\in \mathcal {O}_\pi \;\text {and}\\{} & {} \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \mathcal {I}\not \models \phi _i\;\text {and}\;\alpha _i>\lambda _{inc}\},\\{} & {} \quad \quad \qquad \min \{1\!-\!\alpha _i:(\phi _i,\alpha _i)\!\in \!\mathcal {O}_\pi \;\text {and}\; \mathcal {I}\!\not \models \!\phi _i\;\text {and}\;\alpha _i\!\le \!\lambda _{inc}\}\}\\{} & {} \quad \quad \qquad (since \pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})<1-\lambda _{inc})\\{} & {} \quad \quad \qquad =Min\{1-u, \pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(\mathcal {I})\} \end{aligned}$$\(\square \)
Proposition 10
Let \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \) be a prioritized \(\mathcal {E}\mathcal {L}\) ontology and \(\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }\) its associated possibility distribution. Let \((\phi , u)\) be the new input information. Therefore: \(\pi '_{\mathcal {O}_\pi }=\pi _{\mathcal {O}_\pi }(.\mid _m(\phi , u))\) obtained by the Definition 6 satisfies the logical properties P1, P2 and P3
Proof
To prove that the given definition of min-based conditioning satisfies properties P1, P2, and P3, we need to show that the updated possibility distribution \(\pi '\) satisfies these properties.
P1: \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1\)
Let \(\mathcal {I}\) be any interpretation. We need to show that \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1\). There are four cases to consider:
-
Case 1: \(\mathcal {I}\models \phi \cup \mathcal {S}\) In this case, \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=\pi (\mathcal {I})\) by the first condition in the definition of min-based conditioning. Since \(\pi \) is a possibility distribution and \(\mathcal {I}\models \phi \cup \mathcal {S}\), we have \(\pi (\mathcal {I})\ge \Pi (\phi )>0\), which implies that \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=\pi (\mathcal {I})>0\).
-
Case 2: \(\mathcal {I}\models \phi \cup (\mathcal {O}_\pi \setminus \mathcal {S})\) and \(\mathcal {I}\not \models \mathcal {S}\) In this case, \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=\pi (\mathcal {I})\) by the second condition in the definition of min-based conditioning. Since \(\pi \) is a possibility distribution and \(\mathcal {I}\models \phi \cup (\mathcal {O}_\pi \setminus \mathcal {S})\), we have \(\pi (\mathcal {I})\ge N(\phi )>0\), which implies that \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=\pi (\mathcal {I})>0\).
-
Case 3: \(\mathcal {I}\models \phi \) and \(\mathcal {I}\not \models \mathcal {S}\) and \(\mathcal {I}\not \models \mathcal {O}_\pi \setminus \mathcal {S}\) and \(\pi (\mathcal {I})=N(\phi )\) and \(1-\alpha '\ge 1-u\) In this case, \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1-u\) by the third condition in the definition of min-based conditioning. Since \(1-\alpha '\ge 1-u\), we have \(u\ge \alpha '\). Also, since \(\pi (\mathcal {I})=N(\phi )>0\) and \(\mathcal {I}\models \phi \), we have \(\Pi (\phi )>0\). Therefore, \(\pi (\mathcal {I})\ge \Pi (\phi )\), which implies that \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1-u<1\).
-
Case 4: \(\mathcal {I}\not \models \phi \) and \(\pi (\mathcal {I})>1-u\) In this case, \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1-\alpha '\) by the fourth condition in the definition of min-based conditioning. Since \(\pi (\mathcal {I})>1-u\), we have \(\alpha '<u\), which implies that \(1-\alpha '>1-u\). Also, since \(\pi (\mathcal {I})>0\), we have \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1-\alpha '<1\).
P2: if \(\pi (\mathcal {I})=0\) then \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=0\). Let’s consider the different cases for min-based conditioning:
-
Case 1: \(\mathcal {I}\models \phi \cup \mathcal {S}\): In this case, by definition of min-based conditioning, we have \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=\pi (\mathcal {I})\), since \(\pi (\mathcal {I})\) is either 1 or greater than 0 (if it were 0, then \(\mathcal {I}\) would not be a model of \(\phi \cup \mathcal {S}\)). Therefore, if \(\pi (\mathcal {I})=0\), then we also have \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=0\), which satisfies P2.
-
Case 2: \(\mathcal {I}\models \phi \cup (\mathcal {O}_\pi \setminus \mathcal {S})\), \(\mathcal {I}\not \models \mathcal {S}\), and \(\pi (\mathcal {I})=N(\phi )\): In this case, by definition of min-based conditioning, we have \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1-u\). Therefore, if \(\pi (\mathcal {I})=0\), then we also have \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=0\), which satisfies P2.
-
Case 3: \(\mathcal {I}\models \phi \cup (\mathcal {O}_\pi \setminus \mathcal {S})\), \(\mathcal {I}\not \models \mathcal {S}\), and \(\pi (\mathcal {I})>N(\phi )\): In this case, by definition of min-based conditioning, we have \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=\pi (\mathcal {I})\), since \(\pi (\mathcal {I})\) is either 1 or greater than \(N(\phi )\). Therefore, if \(\pi (\mathcal {I})=0\), then we also have \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=0\), which satisfies P2.
-
Case 4: \(\mathcal {I}\models \phi \), \(\mathcal {I}\not \models \mathcal {S}\), \(\mathcal {I}\not \models \mathcal {O}_\pi \setminus \mathcal {S}\), and \(\pi (\mathcal {I})=N(\phi )\): In this case, by definition of min-based conditioning, we have \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1-u\) if \(1-\alpha '\ge 1-u\), and \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=1-\alpha '\) if \(1-\alpha '<1-u\). Therefore, if \(\pi (\mathcal {I})=0\), then we also have \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=0\), which satisfies P2.
-
Case 5: \(\mathcal {I}\not \models \phi \) and \(\pi (\mathcal {I})>1-u\): In this case, by definition of min-based conditioning, we have \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=\pi (\mathcal {I})\), since \(\pi (\mathcal {I})\) is either 1 or greater than \(1-u\). Therefore, if \(\pi (\mathcal {I})=0\), then we also have \(\pi '(\mathcal {I})=0\), which satisfies P2.
P3: \(\Pi '(\phi )=1\) and \(N'(\phi )\ge u\) Considering the case where \(\mathcal {S}=\mathcal {O}_\pi \). Then \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \models \phi \), so we have \(\Pi (\phi )=1\) and \(N(\phi )=0\). Therefore, by definition of min-based conditioning, we have \(\Pi '(\phi )=1\) and \(N'(\phi )=0\ge u\), which satisfies P3. Now, let’s consider the case where \(\mathcal {S}\subsetneq \mathcal {O}_\pi \). We know that \(\phi \) is not entailed by \(\mathcal {O}_\pi \), so we have \(N(\phi )>0\). We need to show that \(\Pi '(\phi )=1\) and \(N'(\phi )\ge u\). First, consider the case where \(\alpha '\ge 1-u\). Then, we have \(\Pi (\phi )\ge 1-\alpha '>u\), since \(\Pi (\phi )\le 1-\alpha '\) and \(\alpha '\ge 1-u\). Therefore, by definition of min-based conditioning, we have \(\Pi '(\phi )=1\) and \(N'(\phi )\ge u\). Now, let’s consider the case where \(\alpha '<1-u\). In this case, we have \(\Pi (\phi )\le 1-\alpha '<1-u\), since \(\Pi (\phi )\ge 1-\alpha '\) and \(\alpha '<1-u\). Therefore, by definition of min-based conditioning, we have \(\Pi '(\phi )=1\) and \(N'(\phi )\ge u\). Therefore, in both cases, we have \(\Pi '(\phi )=1\) and \(N'(\phi )\ge u\), which satisfies P3. \(\square \)
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Mohamed, R., Loukil, Z., Gargouri, F. et al. Revision of prioritized \(\mathcal {E}\mathcal {L}\) ontologies. Appl Intell 53, 30359–30383 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-023-05074-6
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10489-023-05074-6